[time-nuts] Disciplining dual oscillators using a 3-corner hat

[Brooke Clarke]

Hi Richard:

I neat idea.

I would think there are three key measurements:
TI1 = GPS-A
TI2 = GPS-B
TI3 = A-B
Of these A-B is the most precise and the other two with GPS involved are much 
lower stability.  In your proposed method only the poor time intervals are 
being measured.

So I would think the approach would be make all three measurements at the same 
time then in a perfect world you could solve three equations in three unknowns. 
  But I suspect that the errors will not exactly balance.  So you could split 
the closing error in two and assign half to A and half to B.

Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke
http://www.prc68.com/P/Prod.html  Products I make and sell
http://www.prc68.com/Alpha.shtml  All my web pages listed based on html name
http://www.PRC68.com
http://www.precisionclock.com
http://www.prc68.com/I/WebCam2.shtml 24/7 Sky-Weather-Astronomy Web Cam


Richard H McCorkle wrote:
> Hello Time-Nuts,
> I am currently disciplining two MTI260 oscillators in a
> dual standard to a common GPS timing receiver 1PPS with
> two highly modified Shera style controllers that use a
> 100 MHz TIC with sawtooth correction and a 23-bit DAC.
> Phase samples are accumulated over identical 30-second
> periods between updates and the updates are logged over
> identical sample intervals from both controllers using
> a common receiver. When the phase data from the two
> controllers are compared there is a striking similarity
> in the short-term phase variations in both data sets
> when both oscillators are locked.
>   Extreme care was taken to minimize coupling between
> the oscillators by using separate power supplies,
> physical separation, and shielding of the two systems
> and their associated wiring. Intentionally varying the
> frequency in either of the oscillators has no visible
> effect in the phase data from the other oscillator so
> I don’t believe injection locking is occurring between
> the oscillators.
>   The MTI260 has very good short-term stability so I am
> assuming the short-term phase variations of nanoseconds
> per update seen in both data sets are predominantly the
> result of changes in the GPS 1PPS timing. I am wondering
> if anyone on the list has explored the concept of using
> the common phase variations from multiple disciplined
> high-stability oscillators driven from a common GPS
> receiver to determine the actual GPS variation (using a
> 3-corner hat analysis) and apply that information in the
> disciplining routines to improve oscillator short-term
> stability.
>   I am considering a methodology of doing comparisons of
> A to GPS in controller A, B to GPS in controller B, and
> then having the two controllers share their phase data
> and do a comparison in each controller to determine the
> common GPS variation and correct the raw phase data before
> calculating the EFC. Each controller outputs the combined
> phase effects of the GPS and its oscillator and by sharing
> the phase data between two controllers fed by a common
> receiver I believe the GPS variations in the raw phase
> data could be eliminated using simple PIC math as shown
> in the following equations using Gp as the GPS phase, Ap
> as the A oscillator phase, and Bp as the B oscillator phase.
> 
> Controller A raw phase data = (Gp + Ap)
> Controller B raw phase data = (Gp + Bp)
> Difference in readings = (Gp + Ap) – (Gp + Bp) = (Ap – Bp)
> A reading – difference = (Gp + Ap) – (Ap – Bp) = (Gp – Bp)
> B GPS difference = (Gp + Bp) + (Gp – Bp) = (Gp * 2)
> GPS phase data = (Gp * 2) / 2 = Gp
> Controller A corrected phase data = (Gp + Ap) – Gp = Ap
> Controller B corrected phase data = (Gp + Bp) – Gp = Bp
> 
>    One concern I have is a 3-corner hat is generally
> performed on three sources of similar stability. In
> this case the short-term stability of the two MTI260
> oscillators will be much better than the GPS short-term
> stability and I am questioning how valid the data will be.
> I would appreciate any comments on the concept, flaws in
> the methodology, or pitfalls that might result during
> implementation before I attempt this in a working system.
> 
> Thanks for your input,
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>